Telegraph Hill condos scuttled again

Eric Drudis, OF THE EXAMINER STAFF

Published 4:00 am, Thursday, May 6, 1999

1999-05-06 04:00:00 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- Plans to replace an apartment house that was demolished seven years ago after teetering on the edge of a partially collapsed Telegraph Hill cliff have been derailed once again.

For the second time in three years, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board turned down a developer's proposal to construct an even larger building on the site than the one that hung on the hillside for a month after a heavy rainstorm in 1992, before city work crews finally pulled it down.

"This project is like a vampire," said Telegraph Hill resident Joan Wood, one of 40 neighbors who came out to Wednesday's meeting hoping to drive a final stake in its heart. "I don't know what it's going to take to kill it."

Latest news videos

When the board voted 7-1 to kill the project Wednesday, it wasn't concerned that the soil or the cluttered cliff could hold another building. Instead, board members were responding to neighbors' persistent concerns that the condos proposed for 22 Alta St. would cast shadows over one of San Francisco's most noted attractions: the Grace Marchant Gardens, which surround the rustic, wooden Filbert Street steps.

"My clients and I have tried to do the right thing," McEachron said. "My client voluntarily agreed to get an environmental impact report that showed the impact on the garden is minimal to nonexistent. There was a building on that site when Grace Marchant created her garden - a building of the same height as the one we propose."

The project - a three-unit, three-bedroom condominium complex that the developers had designed to cascade down the cliff - has been embroiled in controversy for four years.

Because the site lies within the Telegraph Hill Historic District, the project needs a certificate of appropriateness from the board, proof that it is architecturally compatible with nearby houses - many of them small 19th-century dwellings - before construction can begin.

In 1995, Willis proposed a seven-unit condominium that was approved by the landmarks board. But communitywide protests arose; he removed four units and presented it to the board again in 1997. This time, the dramatically altered board voted against the plan for the same reason approval was denied Wednesday.

Extending an olive branch beforehand, Willis had agreed to give part of his property to the Marchant Gardens. But community members said they were outraged that a plan that had been rejected was being presented again.

"They have not changed it one nail," said Aaron Peskin, president of the Telegraph Hill Dwellers. "We're shocked that they're degrading the unanimous board decision (in 1997) by bringing back the same project. This is not about the environmental impact report but about the gargantuan size of the building."

The proposed building is twice the size of its nearest neighbor, and 10 times the size of a cottage that would be at the foot of the complex at the bottom of the hill if the condos are built, Peskin said.

James Atwood, the owner of that cottage which exists on the fringes of the Grace Marchant Gardens, said the

"monstrous" building would dwarf his home.

"The City cannot restrict my house to 1,000 square feet and allow the lot next door to go up to 10,000 square feet," Atwood said.

Atwood calculated that the shadows cast by the proposed building would blanket the gardens at least six months of the year - a point contradicted by the developers' EIR.

The board majority agreed. The proposed condos would

"bulge out on the cliff," said Landmarks Board President Daniel Reidy. "The building is too big. We gave them that advice before and they didn't take it."

Commissioner Paul Finwall also disapproved of the proposed condos, but cast the minority vote because the motion only addressed the size of the project, not its architectural style. Finwall said the building's art moderne style was inappropriate for the historic district.

None of the commissioners expressed any worries about the design's safety. McEachron planned more than 30 stilts, each dug 40 feet into the cliff to hold the building in place.

McEachron said he wasn't surprised by the board's decision.

"I guess it was naive of us to think the EIR would justify us because it addressed the contentious issues," McEachron said. "We went from seven units to three, we lowered the building's height and width, and we made the hillside more stable, but it wasn't enough."

McEachron said the developers still want to build on the site, but didn't indicate whether the design would be changed.

where this Alta Street building was torn down was rejecte&lt;

Latest from the SFGATE homepage:

Click below for the top news from around the Bay Area and beyond. Sign up for our newsletters to be the first to learn about breaking news and more. Go to 'Sign In' and 'Manage Profile' at the top of the page.